RankStranger Posted July 19, 2023 Author Share Posted July 19, 2023 14 minutes ago, mwc said: I see. All large firms will endorse diversity (I'm pretty sure 50 employees is the requirement for DEI but I could be wrong). So unless I find one that doesn't then I'm kind of fucked. Essentially you've ruled out all polls I could ever find. Sorry that I don't trust polls on AA from organizations that visibly and actively promote AA. The fact that you can't find any polls from organizations without Public Confessions of Faith should tell you something. Quote In this case I guess the burden falls to you to show that the sources I provided were actually biased in their polling and their results as you've asserted. Both Pew and Gallup are respected sources and have a long track record that you're free to research in order to demonstrate that they're incorrect on this issue. You're also free to include your own sources. I tend to believe that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. I've shown that your sources are obviously and proudly biased on the very issue in question. If you can't find sources without a clear bias... maybe that should tell you something about the claim you've made. Quote I made the claim (without looking back in the thread) that it was essentially equally divided (not speaking to college admissions). Agreed. And you have yet to demonstrate that claim via any source without a publically-confessed (and often investment-driven) bias. Feel free to provide non-biased sources if you like. I'm sure you understand why I'm not convinced by the sources provided so far. Quote I gave you some links to help you understand. I am imagining that you did not look at them. Regardless of what you may imagine, I looked your links over and I'm not convinced. Can you please explain how even more Diversity Training and even more Affirmative Action will fix the demonstrated lying and/or racism built in to Harvard's Affirmative Action admissions process? In an organization already awash in Diversity Training and already doing everything in their power to promote Affirmative Action? You don't have to back up your claim. But if you can't or won't, people aren't likely to find it convincing. Trading links doesn't really accomplish much IMO. If you actually believe this (and I'm not sure if you really do), I'd think you could explain it in your own words rather than just copy/pasting links. We all know how to Google. Quote Funny how suddenly that changed. Maybe go read how they sided with this issue in the past. Maybe look at those articles I linked to. If you would like to make any kind of argument against the Supreme Court's ruling, you're free to do so. Or if you prefer to just express disagreement and post agreeable links, that's cool too. But trading links doesn't make for much of a discussion. Quote The military industrial complex takes the lions share. This problem existed before anything you go on about. The Civil Rights Act. Affirmative Action. All of it. He saw that the money funneled down this pipe and prevented us from having nice things. It still does today. Just watch as Congress makes all sorts of cuts to social programs while increasing military spending even when those in the military say they do not need it. mwc I don't disagree that the Military Industrial Complex is sucking a huge quantity of resources out of our country. Eisenhower made this point long before the Civil Rights Act, and it's no less true today. It also has little bearing on the discussion at hand, except to say 'look over here!'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 19, 2023 Share Posted July 19, 2023 15 minutes ago, RankStranger said: So, for supporters of AA, I have a few questions. For background, my original home town is a dying coal-mining town in Deepest Darkest Appalachia. It's been dying since I was a kid- the mines shut down in the early-mid 80's due to environmental regulations (their coal is kinda nasty and high in sulfur). The local economy was pretty well destroyed as a direct result of environmental regulations on sulfur emissions from coal-fired powerplants. These are regulations I support- they're needed for obvious reasons (Acid Rain is bad m'kay). But this policy has also ruined lives by the hundreds if not thousands. Median Household Income in my home town even today is about $27,000 per year. That's not per person... that's per household. All these decades later, they have rampant problems with drug abuse, mental illness, homelessness, prostitution, crime... name the inner-city problem and they have it. In a town with a population of less than 1800 people these days. It was higher when I was a kid. A lot of people like myself who were able to leave... did just that. And don't get me wrong- there are still good, functional, and even occasionally prosperous people living there. But a huge swath of the population lives in poverty. 40% don't even have a high school diploma. Many are developmentally fucked up due to parents/neighbors/authorities with mental illness, chronic unemployment, drug addiction, incarceration... you name the social problem, they have it. Not to mention heavy metal poisoning from ruined strip-mines. When I was a kid, the creek through town ran orange a lot of the time due to strip mine runoff. There were signs along the creek warning you not touch the water. 1. I would like a supporter of AA to explain to me why opportunities should be taken these unfortunate people (with no compensation) based on their lily-white skin color. And given to another person of a preferred skin color who may suffer none of these disadvantages. Because that's not how it's supposed to work and if it's working that way then it's being done incorrectly and can be addressed usually by going to a labor board. If you don't have a labor board then you should have one created. Usually this is done through the legislature and if the people aren't willing and only want to make weak excuses then they're a part of their own problem. They should want this as a part of their fair treatment. How it should work is if there are some make-up of people: X%, Y% and Z% of people in that area and someone hires then a diversity hire will strive to match that. When you walk into work it should look like the rest of the area in its composition. 15 minutes ago, RankStranger said: 2. While you're at it, please explain why the most wealthy and powerful beneficiaries of Vulgar Capitalism should be empowered to illegally implement this policy of deliberate exclusion, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment. Note that wealthy white people are essentially unaffected by this policy- they have no shortage of opportunity. Affirmative Action effectively targets only the disadvantaged white people for opportunity-redistribution. I could make a similar case for unfortunate Asians in my current city of residence (often descended of Vietnamese refugees). But that isn't my Lived Experience (TM), so I can't go into as much detail. But while we're at it, I'd like to know: I'm not sure what you're thinking of as far as exemptions go here. There are a number of people that are complaining about this sort of privilege. In CA they made a rule that women needed to be in boardrooms. It caused a lot of complaining. I haven't looked into how that has turned out though. 15 minutes ago, RankStranger said: 3. Why should (often fucked up) children of Vietnam War refugees have opportunities taken away from them (with no compensation) and handed to people of a Preferred Color who may share none of the same disadvantages? Is it because Asians are unkind, unlikable, cowardly, and not respected... compared to humans of other colors? Or is your reasoning different from that of the racists/liars at Harvard? I used to live adjacent to, and own a business in, a city that was about 40% Vietnamese refugees. I went to college with them as well. Guess who lost out to grants to these same folks? Go ahead, guess. That's right, me. I did. And it made me mad that they got preferential treatment. Looking back I think I was more upset that it seemed so easy for them and so hard for me. It didn't seem like they needed it but they got it. Now, I can see that I don't really care. We both applied and they got it. Maybe they got it because they were Asian and I didn't get it because I am white? If so then they got it because they had to escape a war and move here. They got it because, even though I grew up poor, my family didn't have to leave our country. So I let it go but I admit it took years for me to understand. I can accept they get a leg-up over me because of that. According to you the best thing would be that even if they were all fucked up and I was just a better student then I'd get the grant and take their place. So appealing to their situation makes it irrelevant. You just don't want some "other" colored person to get in it seems. Also, if I called everyone in the finance department liars and racists I think I'd be a very sad and bitter person. Anyhow, I doubt that Harvard was specifically calling out Vietnamese. The census recently defined the group as: "people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (for example, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam)" This includes a lot of what we'd say are Indian and Arab folks as well. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 19, 2023 Share Posted July 19, 2023 7 minutes ago, RankStranger said: Sorry that I don't trust polls on AA from organizations that visibly and actively promote AA. The fact that you can't find any polls from organizations without Public Confessions of Faith should tell you something. I tend to believe that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. I've shown that your sources are obviously and proudly biased on the very issue in question. If you can't find sources without a clear bias... maybe that should tell you something about the claim you've made. You moved the goal posts after I provided you with a poll that was counter with your initial belief that people overwhelming disliked AA. Now you're using AA as a sort of conspiracy in order to discredit any potential source. I highlighted your positive assertion. Point out their clear bias in their results. You can use your own sources to aid you in this if you like. 7 minutes ago, RankStranger said: Agreed. And you have yet to demonstrate that claim via any source without a publically-confessed (and often investment-driven) bias. Feel free to provide non-biased sources if you like. I'm sure you understand why I'm not convinced by the sources provided so far. See? Here you are cherry-picking the sources that are allowed. You should have said this was going to be the case from the start. I chose reputable sources but those aren't good enough. If you point out where their bias has caused issues with their results I'm willing to have a look and I am also willing to look at your sources as well. 7 minutes ago, RankStranger said: Regardless of what you may imagine, I looked your links over and I'm not convinced. Can you please explain how even more Diversity Training and even more Affirmative Action will fix the demonstrated lying and/or racism built in to Harvard's Affirmative Action admissions process? In an organization already awash in Diversity Training and already doing everything in their power to promote Affirmative Action? You don't have to back up your claim. But if you can't or won't, people aren't likely to find it convincing. Trading links doesn't really accomplish much IMO. If you actually believe this (and I'm not sure if you really do), I'd think you could explain it in your own words rather than just copy/pasting links. We all know how to Google. It's pretty simple. I scan a document. Some words score positive and some negative while other neutral. If I train myself to place certain keywords as negative when they should be positive, or neutral, or vice-versa then that can become a problem. Training tells me that these words aren't what I think they are. That I should recategorize them. So I would need to go back and re-read a lot of documents. Have these errors pointed out to me so I can actively work on the problem. This is how training works. I would learn to grade things in a new way. A simple example would be there was often a complaint that I heard that Asians would downplay musical ability. So I would need to relearn that this isn't a negative trait. It might better be ranked as neutral or positive. Now, perhaps it is a negative trait if they are using it to gain admissions to an already full musical program and there were no need for yet another trombone player but I'm talking in general as a simple filter. 7 minutes ago, RankStranger said: If you would like to make any kind of argument against the Supreme Court's ruling, you're free to do so. Or if you prefer to just express disagreement and post agreeable links, that's cool too. But trading links doesn't make for much of a discussion. I told you I didn't have much time. I suppose I should have made no effort because the effort I did make was unsatisfactory. I'm putting in more time than I have now and I imagine you'll be unhappy with it. 7 minutes ago, RankStranger said: I don't disagree that the Military Industrial Complex is sucking a huge quantity of resources out of our country. Eisenhower made this point long before the Civil Rights Act, and it's no less true today. It also has little bearing on the discussion at hand, except to say 'look over here!'. Yep. It was true. It is true. It uses all those precious resources. If only we could put them into other things? Like health care or schooling? There's nothing about AA that demands our taxes don't come back in such social programs but instead get locked-up in the military. The reason this is on-topic is because you asserted that AA is why we cannot have universal health care or college. This is my reason. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted July 19, 2023 Author Share Posted July 19, 2023 Quote Because that's not how it's supposed to work and if it's working that way then it's being done incorrectly and can be addressed usually by going to a labor board. If you don't have a labor board then you should have one created. Usually this is done through the legislature and if the people aren't willing and only want to make weak excuses then they're a part of their own problem. They should want this as a part of their fair treatment. Taking opportunity from one based on race, and giving that opportunity to another based on race is precisely how AA is "supposed to work". That's what Affirmative Action is, and that's how it's being deliberately (and illegally) implemented. Your solution is that people should accept this unjust and illegal policy... and start a "labor board" or something if they don't like it? No, thanks. We'll rely on the court system to address illegal policy. Can you explain to me why opportunities should be taken from disadvantaged people of a non-preferred color (with no compensation), and given someone of a preferred skin color who doesn't necessarily suffer any of the same disadvantages? Affirmative Action as currently implemented accomplishes exactly this. Quote How it should work is if there are some make-up of people: X%, Y% and Z% of people in that area and someone hires then a diversity hire will strive to match that. When you walk into work it should look like the rest of the area in its composition. "Should" is a funny word. I don't accept any of this as a "should". It's a reasonable description of what a lot of people who support Affirmative Action want. But it's not what I want, and it's not what tens of millions of Americans want. And the Supreme Court agrees that it's illegal to racially discriminate in order to accomplish this poorly-conceived goal. I want individuals to be judged on their own merit, not on their skin color. That's the social contract I grew up with, and I won't be moving my own goal posts from "equality" to "equity" just because the words sound similar. Quote I'm not sure what you're thinking of as far as exemptions go here. There are a number of people that are complaining about this sort of privilege. In CA they made a rule that women needed to be in boardrooms. It caused a lot of complaining. I haven't looked into how that has turned out though. The most obvious 'exemption' in the case of Harvard would be the mostly-white legacy admissions. These ensure that the children of our AA-promoting Moral Betters don't suffer the consequences of their condescending, half-baked policy. By maintaining legacy admissions, Harvard ensures that the most privileged wealthy White and Asian applicants will be included, directly excluding disadvantaged White and Asian applicants (because humans of other skin colors are highly preferred in the remaining non-legacy admissions). And furthermore, wealthy EurAsian people in general have no shortage of opportunity due to their wealth and consequent privilege. So a denied opportunity at Harvard has little real impact- they can simply choose a different top-tier school. They can pay tutors, hire test-takers, pay off colleges, etc. as needed to ensure their kids have good opportunities. Disadvantaged EurAsian people don't have these options, and are therefore effectively excluded by AA. This isn't difficult to understand unless you're trying really hard not to. That rule about women in the board rooms is a good demonstration of why AA is a policy made by and for the wealthy and powerful... while virtue-signaling at the expense of others. The vast VAST majority of people in this country- of any color- will never sit on a corporate board, and will never know anybody who does. The only people directly helped by this policy are wealthy and powerful women. Not a single poor or uneducated woman will be directly helped by this policy. This is upper-class virtue-signaling and little more. Quote I used to live adjacent to, and own a business in, a city that was about 40% Vietnamese refugees. I went to college with them as well. Guess who lost out to grants to these same folks? Go ahead, guess. That's right, me. I did. And it made me mad that they got preferential treatment. Looking back I think I was more upset that it seemed so easy for them and so hard for me. It didn't seem like they needed it but they got it. Now, I can see that I don't really care. We both applied and they got it. Maybe they got it because they were Asian and I didn't get it because I am white? If so then they got it because they had to escape a war and move here. They got it because, even though I grew up poor, my family didn't have to leave our country. So I let it go but I admit it took years for me to understand. I can accept they get a leg-up over me because of that. According to you the best thing would be that even if they were all fucked up and I was just a better student then I'd get the grant and take their place. So appealing to their situation makes it irrelevant. You just don't want some "other" colored person to get in it seems. Also, if I called everyone in the finance department liars and racists I think I'd be a very sad and bitter person. Anyhow, I doubt that Harvard was specifically calling out Vietnamese. The census recently defined the group as: "people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (for example, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam)" This includes a lot of what we'd say are Indian and Arab folks as well. mwc I had also accepted these illegal, divisive, and ineffective policies as inevitable- until the Supreme Court proved that they weren't. It's not every day that a major party in the U.S. offers me something that I actually want (equal protection under the law in this case), so I've taken notice. Millions more angry/bitter Mediocre White Men have no doubt noticed the same thing. I look forward to more idiotic AA cases working their way through the Repug-stacked Federal Courts. Let the tears flow And remember, so-called 'liberals' can stop this stupidity any time they choose. They're perfectly free to support policy that helps actual disadvantaged people, regardless of skin color. That they consistently choose otherwise to is telling, IMO. By and large these aren't leftists. They're elitists masquerading as leftist for virtue-points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted July 19, 2023 Author Share Posted July 19, 2023 Quote You moved the goal posts after I provided you with a poll that was counter with your initial belief that people overwhelming disliked AA. Now you're using AA as a sort of conspiracy in order to discredit any potential source. Ok, let me give you that goal, since I moved the posts... but with an asterisk*. I will happily grand that you have provided evidence showing that Affirmative Action is not in fact wildly unpopular* *Thus far supported only by 'evidence' from sources proudly confessing their own bias on the very issue of Affirmative Action. There, you've scored a goal*. Are we good now? Quote See? Here you are cherry-picking the sources that are allowed. You should have said this was going to be the case from the start. I chose reputable sources but those aren't good enough. If you point out where their bias has caused issues with their results I'm willing to have a look and I am also willing to look at your sources as well. You're "allowed" to provide any evidence you want. Whether that evidence is accepted isn't up to you. Anyhow, you've scored your goal*. Do you think anybody who doesn't currently support AA will find your clearly biased sources convincing? I think some will, especially if you again choose to ignore or minimize the poll organization's clearly stated bias. More people would probably be convinced though by evidence that doesn't come with an obvious bias on the particular issue in question. Quote I highlighted your positive assertion. Point out their clear bias in their results. You can use your own sources to aid you in this if you like. Wouldn't it be simpler to just google up a poll from a not-obviously-biased organization? Certainly easier than picking apart a poll that I'm not qualified to pick apart even if I did have all the relevant info. Clearly we're not going to get anywhere with this. But it's funny how the only polls showing widespread support of AA come from organizations that explicitly promote AA. What a coincidence! Quote So I would need to go back and re-read a lot of documents. Have these errors pointed out to me so I can actively work on the problem. This is how training works. I would learn to grade things in a new way. A simple example would be there was often a complaint that I heard that Asians would downplay musical ability. So I would need to relearn that this isn't a negative trait. It might better be ranked as neutral or positive. Now, perhaps it is a negative trait if they are using it to gain admissions to an already full musical program and there were no need for yet another trombone player but I'm talking in general as a simple filter. You sure seem to have a lot of faith Diversity Training. Have you ever looked into how effective it is? I would encourage you to google that. We can trade links if you want, but I don't think that will be necessary if you spend even a few minutes looking into it. You will find that there's very little evidence showing that Diversity Training and the like actually works to change anyone's biases... along with some evidence that Diversity Training is counterproductive to that end. Diversity Training is truly effective though at (1) providing nice salaries for HR Drones, corporate consultants with Grievance-studies degrees, and the like... and (2) providing plausible deniability for any corporation accused of racially-motivated discrimination. Like most HR practices, Diversity Training in the corporate world is ultimately designed to protect the company- not the employee. In this case, to protect the company FROM lawsuits by the very minorities it purports to help (allowing the company to show due diligence, regardless of whether said practices are effective in any way). I'm not sure why you have faith in this sort of self-serving bureaucracy, but most people see through it. Quote I told you I didn't have much time. I suppose I should have made no effort because the effort I did make was unsatisfactory. I'm putting in more time than I have now and I imagine you'll be unhappy with it. I'm actually quite happy with this debate so far. So much so that I'm gonna blow a little more smoke up your ass. I've never 'won' a debate of any kind with you... not to my own satisfaction anyway. So at this point I'm just interested to see if I can do it. I understand that this isn't really a fair fight, with the truth and the law firmly on my side. But you have wealthy/powerful allies and decades of institutional inertia on your side... and that's not nothing. Take all the time you want. I went dark for several days when we went out to the farm for the weekend. We all have lives to live. Quote Yep. It was true. It is true. It uses all those precious resources. If only we could put them into other things? Like health care or schooling? There's nothing about AA that demands our taxes don't come back in such social programs but instead get locked-up in the military. The reason this is on-topic is because you asserted that AA is why we cannot have universal health care or college. This is my reason. mwc I think we can both agree that the Military Industrial Complex is 'a' reason why we can't have nice things, but far from the only reason. I'm offering AA as another reason why we can't have nice things, but it's also far from the only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 18 hours ago, RankStranger said: Taking opportunity from one based on race, and giving that opportunity to another based on race is precisely how AA is "supposed to work". That's what Affirmative Action is, and that's how it's being deliberately (and illegally) implemented. Your solution is that people should accept this unjust and illegal policy... and start a "labor board" or something if they don't like it? No, thanks. We'll rely on the court system to address illegal policy. From Wikipedia: Quote Affirmative action in the United States consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to historically excluded groups, specifically racial minorities or women.[1][2] The programs tended to focus on access to education and employment. The impetus toward affirmative action was redressing the disadvantages[3][4][5][6][7] associated with past and present discrimination.[8] Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.[9] If they're implementing it in a way that is different from how I explained it before, and which is how it is explained here, then they are doing it wrong. 18 hours ago, RankStranger said: Can you explain to me why opportunities should be taken from disadvantaged people of a non-preferred color (with no compensation), and given someone of a preferred skin color who doesn't necessarily suffer any of the same disadvantages? Affirmative Action as currently implemented accomplishes exactly this. I never argued it was a perfect system. I said it was better than what came before. I even offered some statistics to demonstrate my point (whether you accept them or not). That said it should accomplish the goals as it set out to do. As I posted above. If it's not serving those purposes then it's not working correctly. So, to your question, if someone is not historically disadvantaged then they should not qualify. If they do, and don't meet another of the qualifying factors, then the implementation was incorrect. Now, there was for awhile something called race-norming and it's now illegal: Quote Race-norming, more formally called within-group score conversion and score adjustment strategy, is the practice of adjusting test scores to account for the race or ethnicity of the test-taker.[1] In the United States, it was first implemented by the Federal Government in 1981 with little publicity,[2] and was subsequently outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.[3] This would be a good example of AA implemented poorly and getting corrected. This is a good thing. 18 hours ago, RankStranger said: "Should" is a funny word. I don't accept any of this as a "should". It's a reasonable description of what a lot of people who support Affirmative Action want. But it's not what I want, and it's not what tens of millions of Americans want. And the Supreme Court agrees that it's illegal to racially discriminate in order to accomplish this poorly-conceived goal. Were you equally adamant for the Supreme Court rulings that sided with AA? I only ask because it seems you only like this particular case because you agree with it. I imagine not so much with the other cases. 18 hours ago, RankStranger said: I want individuals to be judged on their own merit, not on their skin color. That's the social contract I grew up with, and I won't be moving my own goal posts from "equality" to "equity" just because the words sound similar. Another Wikipedia: Quote Function The myth of meritocracy has been identified by scholars[who?] as a tool of the elite of a society to uphold and justify the reproduction of existing economic, social, and political hierarchies.[4][6][16][17] Class mobility The myth of meritocracy is used to maintain the belief that class mobility is widely attainable. As Daniel Markovits describes, "meritocracy excludes people outside of the elite, excludes middle class people and working class people from schooling, from good jobs, and from status and income, and then insults them by saying that the reason they’re excluded is that they don’t measure up, rather than that there’s a structural block to their inclusion."[14] Furthermore, Markovits explicitly denounces the myth of the purported "American meritocracy", which for him "has become precisely what it was invented to combat: a mechanism for the dynastic transmission of wealth and privilege across generations."[18] Phrases such as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" have been identified as concealing the myth of meritocracy by placing the onus of upward class mobility solely on the individual while intentionally ignoring structural conditions.[17] The minority of individuals who manage to overcome structural conditions and achieve upward class mobility are used as examples to support the idea that meritocracy exists.[19] In the United States, people of lower classes are conditioned to believe in meritocracy, despite class mobility in the country being among the lowest in industrialized economies.[20][17] In the U.S., 50% of a father's income position is inherited by his son. In contrast, the amount in Norway or Canada is less than 20%. Moreover, in the U.S. 8% of children raised in the bottom 20% of the income distribution are able to climb to the top 20% as adults, while the figure in Denmark is nearly double at 15%.[21] According to an academic study on why Americans overestimate class mobility, "research indicates that errors in social perception are driven by both informational factors—such as the lack of awareness of statistical information relevant to actual mobility trends—and motivational factors—the desire to believe that society is meritocratic."[19] Americans are more inclined to believe in meritocracy out of the prospect that they will one day join the elite or upper class. Scholars have paralleled this belief to John Steinbeck's notable quote that "the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”[22] As academic Tad Delay states, "the fantasy of class mobility, of becoming bourgeois, is enough to defend the aristocracy."[17] In India, the myth of meritocracy has been identified as a mechanism for the elite to justify the structure of the caste system.[16] Racism The myth of meritocracy has been identified by scholars as promoting the color blind philosophy that anyone, regardless of their race or ethnicity, can succeed if they work hard enough. "This belief suggests that if a person of color is not succeeding at work (e.g. not getting promoted), it must be due to laziness or a lack of effort on that person's part," rather than a structural barrier, as described by professor, activist, and comedian Kevin Nadal, Katie Griffen, and Yinglee Wong.[23] The concept of meritocracy has been suggested as a tool to both dismiss theoretical institutional racism and justify racist attitudes while also serving as an argument against affirmative action policies.[4][24][25] The belief that the United States is a meritocracy is most accepted as an accurate reflection of reality among young, upper class, whites and Asians and least accepted as an accurate reflection of reality among older, working class, people of color.[26] Tyranny of merit Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel in his latest book (2020) makes a case against meritocracy, calling it a "tyranny". Ongoing stalled social mobility and increasing inequality are laying bare the crass delusion of the American Dream, and the promise "you can make it if you want and try". The latter, according to Sandel, is the main culprit of the anger and frustration which brought some Western countries towards populism.[27][28] 18 hours ago, RankStranger said: The most obvious 'exemption' in the case of Harvard would be the mostly-white legacy admissions. These ensure that the children of our AA-promoting Moral Betters don't suffer the consequences of their condescending, half-baked policy. By maintaining legacy admissions, Harvard ensures that the most privileged wealthy White and Asian applicants will be included, directly excluding disadvantaged White and Asian applicants (because humans of other skin colors are highly preferred in the remaining non-legacy admissions). And furthermore, wealthy EurAsian people in general have no shortage of opportunity due to their wealth and consequent privilege. So a denied opportunity at Harvard has little real impact- they can simply choose a different top-tier school. They can pay tutors, hire test-takers, pay off colleges, etc. as needed to ensure their kids have good opportunities. Disadvantaged EurAsian people don't have these options, and are therefore effectively excluded by AA. This isn't difficult to understand unless you're trying really hard not to. Who says I don't see what you're trying to say? I would say just take a peek at what I quoted above in the myth of meritocracy. I don't think that legacies should rule the world, or whatever you might think I think, I just understand that meritocracies aren't the panacea people believe them to be. They are also rife with many of the problems of AA. Wikipedia: Quote More recent conceptions[edit] To this day, the origin of the term meritocracy is widely attributed to the British sociologist Michael Young, who used it pejoratively in his book The Rise of the Meritocracy. For Young, merit is defined as intelligence plus effort. As a result, he portrays a fictional meritocratic society as a dystopia, in which social stratification is based solely on intelligence and individual merit, which creates a highly competitive and unequal society.[5] Despite this initial negative connotation, the term meritocracy has gained some positive recognition more recently. As such, it is nowadays applied to merit-based systems of status and reward allocation in distinction to aristocratic or class-based systems, in which inherited factors are the primary determinant for the position of an individual in society.[12] Yet, the concept of meritocracy as a social system has also attracted much criticism. In light of the rising social inequality in the 21st century, scholars have labelled meritocracy a political ideology and an illusion.[13][5] As Thomas Piketty notes in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century "our democratic societies rest on a meritocratic worldview".[14] Accordingly, restricted mobility and the significance of inherited wealth co-exist with the belief in a meritocratic system. Consequently, "the idea of meritocracy has become a key means of cultural legitimation for contemporary capitalist culture",[15] in which wealth and income inequalities are being perpetuated and reproduced.[16] This is supported by recent research which shows that, the more unequal a society, the higher the tendency of members of that society to attribute success to meritocracy rather than non-meritocratic variables such as inherited wealth.[17] This illustrates that the contemporary conception of meritocracy is at least twofold.[18] On the one hand, it describes a social system based on the notion that individuals are rewarded and advance in society as a result of their talent and effort.[12] This conception presupposes social mobility and equality of opportunity. On the other hand, meritocracy can be understood as an ideological discourse grounded in different belief systems, that manifest themselves in different forms such as social democratic and neoliberal conceptions of meritocracy.[19] The most common form of meritocratic screening found today is the college degree. Higher education is an imperfect meritocratic screening system for various reasons, such as lack of uniform standards worldwide,[20][21] lack of scope (not all occupations and processes are included), and lack of access (some talented people never have an opportunity to participate because of the expense, most especially in developing countries).[22] Nonetheless, academic degrees serve some amount of meritocratic screening purpose in the absence of a more refined methodology. Education alone, however, does not constitute a complete system, as meritocracy must automatically confer power and authority, which a degree does not accomplish independently.[citation needed] Quote 20th century to today[edit] Singapore describes meritocracy as one of its official guiding principles for domestic public policy formulation, placing emphasis on academic credentials as objective measures of merit.[49] There is criticism that, under this system, Singaporean society is being increasingly stratified and that an elite class is being created from a narrow segment of the population.[50] Singapore has a growing level of tutoring for children,[51] and top tutors are often paid better than school teachers.[51][52][53] Defenders of this system recall the ancient Chinese proverb "Wealth never survives past three generations" (Chinese: 富不过三代), suggesting that the nepotism or cronyism of elitists eventually will be, and often are, limited by those lower down the hierarchy. Singaporean academics are continuously re-examining the application of meritocracy as an ideological tool and how it's stretched to encompass the ruling party's objectives. Professor Kenneth Paul Tan at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy asserts that "meritocracy, in trying to 'isolate' merit by treating people with fundamentally unequal backgrounds as superficially the same, can be a practice that ignores and even conceals the real advantages and disadvantages that are unevenly distributed to different segments of an inherently unequal society, a practice that in fact perpetuates this fundamental inequality. In this way, those who are picked by meritocracy as having merit may already have enjoyed unfair advantages from the very beginning, ignored according to the principle of nondiscrimination".[54] How meritocracy in the Singaporean context relates to the application of pragmatism as an ideological device, which combines strict adherence to market principles without any aversion to social engineering and little propensity for classical social welfarism,[55] is further illustrated by Kenneth Paul Tan in subsequent articles: There is a strong ideological quality in Singapore's pragmatism, and a strongly pragmatic quality in ideological negotiations within the dynamics of hegemony. In this complex relationship, the combination of ideological and pragmatic maneuvering over the decades has resulted in the historical dominance of government by the PAP in partnership with global capital whose interests have been advanced without much reservation.[56] Within the Ecuadorian Ministry of Labor, the Ecuadorian Meritocracy Institute[57] was created under the technical advice of the Singaporean government. With similar objections, John Rawls rejects the ideal of meritocracy as well.[58] 18 hours ago, RankStranger said: That rule about women in the board rooms is a good demonstration of why AA is a policy made by and for the wealthy and powerful... while virtue-signaling at the expense of others. The vast VAST majority of people in this country- of any color- will never sit on a corporate board, and will never know anybody who does. The only people directly helped by this policy are wealthy and powerful women. Not a single poor or uneducated woman will be directly helped by this policy. This is upper-class virtue-signaling and little more. So you wanted an example where the rich also had to adhere to AA then, when given one, you say this? That's funny. The idea is that women were historically disadvantaged (ie. the glass ceiling) so this would address that. As I said, I haven't followed it so I don't know much about it overall. I do know it met your criteria. 18 hours ago, RankStranger said: I had also accepted these illegal, divisive, and ineffective policies as inevitable- until the Supreme Court proved that they weren't. It's not every day that a major party in the U.S. offers me something that I actually want (equal protection under the law in this case), so I've taken notice. Millions more angry/bitter Mediocre White Men have no doubt noticed the same thing. I look forward to more idiotic AA cases working their way through the Repug-stacked Federal Courts. Let the tears flow Um, okay. I'm sorry you couldn't get into Harvard because some "wrong" colored person did? 18 hours ago, RankStranger said: And remember, so-called 'liberals' can stop this stupidity any time they choose. They're perfectly free to support policy that helps actual disadvantaged people, regardless of skin color. That they consistently choose otherwise to is telling, IMO. By and large these aren't leftists. They're elitists masquerading as leftist for virtue-points. Or something. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 22 hours ago, RankStranger said: Ok, let me give you that goal, since I moved the posts... but with an asterisk*. I will happily grand that you have provided evidence showing that Affirmative Action is not in fact wildly unpopular* *Thus far supported only by 'evidence' from sources proudly confessing their own bias on the very issue of Affirmative Action. There, you've scored a goal*. Are we good now? Ahh, what a back-handed apology. The best kind. It's like it's worthless. 22 hours ago, RankStranger said: You're "allowed" to provide any evidence you want. Whether that evidence is accepted isn't up to you. Anyhow, you've scored your goal*. Ooh, another slap. It's like I got it on both cheeks. Am I jesus? 22 hours ago, RankStranger said: Do you think anybody who doesn't currently support AA will find your clearly biased sources convincing? I think some will, especially if you again choose to ignore or minimize the poll organization's clearly stated bias. More people would probably be convinced though by evidence that doesn't come with an obvious bias on the particular issue in question. So convince me with your sources. 22 hours ago, RankStranger said: Wouldn't it be simpler to just google up a poll from a not-obviously-biased organization? Certainly easier than picking apart a poll that I'm not qualified to pick apart even if I did have all the relevant info. Clearly we're not going to get anywhere with this. But it's funny how the only polls showing widespread support of AA come from organizations that explicitly promote AA. What a coincidence! I can't use Google. They use DEI! Clearly biased. I can't imagine the search results they'd provide. No, no, I need an unbiased search engine to provide unbiased links to unbiased polls. That way you can pick apart those unbiased results even though you're not qualified. I'm willing to let you help me out here since I am also probably biased. 22 hours ago, RankStranger said: You sure seem to have a lot of faith Diversity Training. Have you ever looked into how effective it is? I work with computers. That's one reason one of those links I sent you before dealt specifically with computers. Most applications are pre-filtered (for lack of a better word) before they ever get to a human. So, if you can effectively train these systems then, yes, you can fix a lot of the bias before it even makes it to a human to further compound. Unfortunately, this is a tough nut to crack. Humans are the easier target for this process at the moment. 22 hours ago, RankStranger said: I would encourage you to google that. We can trade links if you want, but I don't think that will be necessary if you spend even a few minutes looking into it. You will find that there's very little evidence showing that Diversity Training and the like actually works to change anyone's biases... along with some evidence that Diversity Training is counterproductive to that end. Diversity Training is truly effective though at (1) providing nice salaries for HR Drones, corporate consultants with Grievance-studies degrees, and the like... and (2) providing plausible deniability for any corporation accused of racially-motivated discrimination. Like most HR practices, Diversity Training in the corporate world is ultimately designed to protect the company- not the employee. In this case, to protect the company FROM lawsuits by the very minorities it purports to help (allowing the company to show due diligence, regardless of whether said practices are effective in any way). I'm not sure why you have faith in this sort of self-serving bureaucracy, but most people see through it. Diversity training as you describe is a bit different than what I was speaking about. It's a matter of training to recognize and remove bias. I don't care if you are biased as long as you are aware of those biases and can self-correct them when required. I am biased against religion. I would need to recognize that if I were choose against religious candidates. Training and feedback would help me recognize that if I had a constant output that showed that bias. If it turns out I couldn't be trusted then I should be swapped out since my job would be to not let my bias control my output. 22 hours ago, RankStranger said: I'm actually quite happy with this debate so far. So much so that I'm gonna blow a little more smoke up your ass. I've never 'won' a debate of any kind with you... not to my own satisfaction anyway. So at this point I'm just interested to see if I can do it. I understand that this isn't really a fair fight, with the truth and the law firmly on my side. But you have wealthy/powerful allies and decades of institutional inertia on your side... and that's not nothing. Take all the time you want. I went dark for several days when we went out to the farm for the weekend. We all have lives to live. I really don't care about winning all that much. I know it might look like it (it mainly only mattered with BO who just trolled so it was fun to say whatever to win). I'm more concerned about reliability. Is what I'm saying reliable? Also, does it make sense? Can you check my work to see where I'm coming from? I don't need you to agree. In fact, I came into this expecting you to not agree right until we call it quits. As I've said, we already have rules against AA in CA. If it goes away it's really not a big change here. I think companies will keep using a similar thing for "diversity." So I really don't need to win anything. I think it was a bad decision given the history and what we know. I would like to see revisions but I can't say I know enough to suggest anything. 22 hours ago, RankStranger said: I think we can both agree that the Military Industrial Complex is 'a' reason why we can't have nice things, but far from the only reason. I'm offering AA as another reason why we can't have nice things, but it's also far from the only one. Well, in this case I guess we should free up some of that cash and see where it gets stopped up or diverted to, next? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted July 21, 2023 Author Share Posted July 21, 2023 Quote Ahh, what a back-handed apology. The best kind. It's like it's worthless. Ooh, another slap. It's like I got it on both cheeks. Am I jesus? So convince me with your sources. I can't use Google. They use DEI! Clearly biased. I can't imagine the search results they'd provide. No, no, I need an unbiased search engine to provide unbiased links to unbiased polls. That way you can pick apart those unbiased results even though you're not qualified. I'm willing to let you help me out here since I am also probably biased. You accused me of a dishonest debate tactic (moving goal-posts), rather than even attempting to address the obvious bias in your presented 'evidence'. Seemed to me that you just really wanted your goal*, with no particular concern about the truth of the polls you've presented as evidence. Without even an attempt to find polls without said obvious bias. Sorry I'm not sufficiently respectful of such lazy tactics. I've already tried to drop this particular point of discussion by conceding that my initial claim (AA being opposed by a large majority of Americans) is based on decades-old info that might not even be relevant today. Point taken, but with several grains of salt. I'm still willing to drop this point of discussion, but I'm not going to accept your alleged 'evidence' when the poll organizations are proudly confessing their bias on the very question at hand. I find it odd and a little amusing that you don't think their Public Confessions of Faith are important to a discussion regarding a core prescription of said Faith (AA in this case). Friend, are you a Believer in the one true faith of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? Would you like to make your own Statement of Faith on the matter? All the cool kids are doing it these days Let's take a look at those goal posts you think I moved, in case you still want to win a 'goal' rather than a 'goal*'. Here's my original goal-post: Quote First of all it's opposed by a large majority of Americans 'it' being Affirmative Action. I've already conceded this point (though without accepting your inadequate 'evidence'), but that wasn't enough to suit you. So you made an accusation instead of an argument. Care to show me the new location of my goal posts? And quote some evidence that I moved them to said new location? Since you've made that allegation. Thanks. Quote So convince me with your sources. Seeings how I've already conceded this initial claim (without accepting your inadequate 'evidence'), I didn't see any reason to provide evidence. But since you're still trying to turn that goal* into a goal, I'll pretend for a bit to care whether or not AA is in fact wildly unpopular with the American People: Here's a poll from the Pew Research Center. In spite of their Faithfully Proclaimed Bias, they've found that 74% of Americans believe that race should not be a factor in college admissions. Ain't it cool how their bias on this subject makes my evidence stronger, while that same bias makes your evidence weaker? Here's another poll from Pew where they show percentages by the respondents' race. Turns out that even minorities who benefit from the practice don't support racial discrimination in college admissions. Maybe they should defer to our wealthy, privileged, lily-white Moral Betters at Harvard, who know what's best for us all Quote I work with computers. That's one reason one of those links I sent you before dealt specifically with computers. Most applications are pre-filtered (for lack of a better word) before they ever get to a human. So, if you can effectively train these systems then, yes, you can fix a lot of the bias before it even makes it to a human to further compound. Unfortunately, this is a tough nut to crack. Humans are the easier target for this process at the moment. Diversity training as you describe is a bit different than what I was speaking about. It's a matter of training to recognize and remove bias. I don't care if you are biased as long as you are aware of those biases and can self-correct them when required. I am biased against religion. I would need to recognize that if I were choose against religious candidates. Training and feedback would help me recognize that if I had a constant output that showed that bias. If it turns out I couldn't be trusted then I should be swapped out since my job would be to not let my bias control my output. Ok. I'm not really interested in this HR software or whatever it is you're talking about. I don't care whether it works, nor do I care if you think people can train themselves to magically remove bias when using some sort of software. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Quote I really don't care about winning all that much. Nobody in this dark corner of the internet is losing sleep over our spirited discussion. But you've made a good showing for a guy who doesn't care about winning. Quote As I've said, we already have rules against AA in CA. If it goes away it's really not a big change here. I think companies will keep using a similar thing for "diversity." Yeah, as long as DEI investors are essentially funding racial discrimination, companies will be happy to do it. The great thing about this SCrOTUS decision though is how it lays the ground work to enforce the Equal Protection Clause and eliminate all sorts of deliberate discrimination. It'll take a while for cases to work their way through the system, but the Trump Admin has kindly stacked most of the Federal bench with judges who will be happy to facilitate. I've said for years that even though I didn't vote for Trump, and won't vote for anything like him... I may end up being happy at some point that we have these 'conservative' justices in place. That happened quicker than I expected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 15 hours ago, RankStranger said: You accused me of a dishonest debate tactic (moving goal-posts), rather than even attempting to address the obvious bias in your presented 'evidence'. Seemed to me that you just really wanted your goal*, with no particular concern about the truth of the polls you've presented as evidence. Without even an attempt to find polls without said obvious bias. Sorry I'm not sufficiently respectful of such lazy tactics. I've already tried to drop this particular point of discussion by conceding that my initial claim (AA being opposed by a large majority of Americans) is based on decades-old info that might not even be relevant today. Point taken, but with several grains of salt. I'm still willing to drop this point of discussion, but I'm not going to accept your alleged 'evidence' when the poll organizations are proudly confessing their bias on the very question at hand. I find it odd and a little amusing that you don't think their Public Confessions of Faith are important to a discussion regarding a core prescription of said Faith (AA in this case). Friend, are you a Believer in the one true faith of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? Would you like to make your own Statement of Faith on the matter? All the cool kids are doing it these days Alright, let's keep kicking this horse. So that we're on the same page: Quote Logical fallacy[edit] Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[14] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.[15] I offered the poll. You seemed to accept the information but later brought up their statements as a way to say the information, the polls and the results, were themselves biased. Not that this is evidence or proof but an allusion that they simply may well be. So rather than point out problems within the information you are attempting an ad hom attack on the source in hopes to discredit their data. You moved the goalposts so we won't talk about their results but they themselves, DEI statements and things like that, which are something else entirely than what I had posted, why I posted it and why you initially appeared to accept it. Fair enough so far? I made multiple offers to you for you to discuss problems with their data but you simply pointed elsewhere (ie. the DEI statement). Again, an ad hom unless you could show their DEI statement actually did bias their reporting as you had claimed. As it stands we're simply stuck here. I see that you want to discuss DEI statements but the context in which you introduced them does not seem genuine. It appears to be a way to divert from the results of a poll (two actually) that you do not agree. 15 hours ago, RankStranger said: Here's a poll from the Pew Research Center. In spite of their Faithfully Proclaimed Bias, they've found that 74% of Americans believe that race should not be a factor in college admissions. Ain't it cool how their bias on this subject makes my evidence stronger, while that same bias makes your evidence weaker? Oh man, someone should have something like "People are more split on AA overall, except in college admissions, where the majority do not support it." around July 12th. Missed opportunities. 15 hours ago, RankStranger said: Ok. I'm not really interested in this HR software or whatever it is you're talking about. I don't care whether it works, nor do I care if you think people can train themselves to magically remove bias when using some sort of software. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You missed my point. And it is a boring one I will admit. The short, much less accurate, version is on-boarding people, whether HR or admissions, is up to the training of those who bring them on. If you train them poorly, allow them to fall into poor habits (ie. shortcuts, etc.), no feedback or monitoring will provide less than desirable results. So, training, monitoring and correction will help overcome problems. A lot of times we feel that a system, human or automated, will simply work and beyond the initial setup there's rarely anything beyond that until you discover it is broken. This really extends to most systems (ie. electrical, mechanical), where you need to do more than set them up but that's usually what happens, with little to no maintenance, then they run until they break and people wonder what went wrong? 15 hours ago, RankStranger said: Nobody in this dark corner of the internet is losing sleep over our spirited discussion. But you've made a good showing for a guy who doesn't care about winning. Well, you want me to support my position don't you? I think life would be a little boring if I just nodded and agreed. You'd say "I think...", then I'd type "Yep" and end of thread. But we can call it quits anytime. I won't mind. 15 hours ago, RankStranger said: Yeah, as long as DEI investors are essentially funding racial discrimination, companies will be happy to do it. The great thing about this SCrOTUS decision though is how it lays the ground work to enforce the Equal Protection Clause and eliminate all sorts of deliberate discrimination. It'll take a while for cases to work their way through the system, but the Trump Admin has kindly stacked most of the Federal bench with judges who will be happy to facilitate. I've said for years that even though I didn't vote for Trump, and won't vote for anything like him... I may end up being happy at some point that we have these 'conservative' justices in place. That happened quicker than I expected I don't listen to podcasts. For some reason the link didn't work to their transcript so I wasn't able to read it (I think the problem is on my side so I'll try again later). You know something is "good" when what is likely one of, if not the most, corrupt administrations in history does it. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted July 22, 2023 Author Share Posted July 22, 2023 I'm going to just walk away from that dead horse if you don't mind. I'm good with leaving the horse and the moved goalposts where they are. Quote Well, you want me to support my position don't you? I think life would be a little boring if I just nodded and agreed. You'd say "I think...", then I'd type "Yep" and end of thread. But we can call it quits anytime. I won't mind. I'd rather not call it quits. Surely we can kick some other horse? I'm not sure what you're getting at with the podcast transcript, but it sounds like AA isn't working out for her. I could imagine the AA-admissions at Harvard having similar problems. But if somebody has been taught from birth that every problem they have is due to (insert original sin here), they're going to have problems no matter what bureaucracy we put in place. People who don't own their problems (even ones created totally by others) don't tend to solve them. I don't know the lady in the interview, but it's an impression I get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted August 1, 2023 Author Share Posted August 1, 2023 I came across an Atlantic article that's relevant to this discussion. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/defense-supreme-court/674874/ Alternate link here, if you need to get past the pay-wall: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7H7_VmkqQGUJ:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/defense-supreme-court/674874/&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca There's commentary on all the recent Supreme Court decisions. This part is relevant to my discussion with MWC: Quote Affirmative Action What if I told you that one of the oldest, most powerful corporations in America was engaged in institutionalized racial discrimination against a historically marginalized group; that young people who wanted to join the institution were assigned “personal ratings” by its officials; and that when those ratings were analyzed, members of the minority group were systematically rated as relatively deficient in traits such as “integrity, helpfulness, courage, kindness, fortitude, empathy, self-confidence, leadership ability, maturity, or grit” when compared with white people? That is just part of the ugly reality of the admissions system that Harvard covertly implemented over the many years in which it was racially discriminating against Asian applicants. In different ways, the University of North Carolina discriminated against the same cohort. How absurd that far-flung American teenagers from the diaspora of the gargantuan, wildly diverse continent of Asia were––on the basis of retrograde racial pseudoscience––treated as a coherent group and forced to compete among one another for spots. The majority opinion in the combined cases of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina struck down colleges’ ability to engage in racial discrimination in the name of affirmative action. Reasonable observers can differ as to whether the scope of the majority decision was appropriate or whether the racist policies should have been struck down more narrowly. But the majority got the most important question right: Neither the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Civil Rights Act permits flagrant racial discrimination on the basis of Asian ancestry. And moral clarity on that question was not just ethically important; it was politically important too. When progressives defend old-age entitlements such as Social Security, they grasp that the universality of such programs is inseparable from their long-term popularity. The same is true for our civil-rights infrastructure. Insofar as that infrastructure protects everyone in our multiethnic nation from the indignity of racial discrimination, everyone will have a stake in conserving it. In contrast, if civil-rights law protects Black people from elites who would assign them inferior “personal ratings” but does not protect Asian people––if it may or may not protect Latinos and definitely won’t protect white people––many will have an interest in its collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts